Get documents about "Critical Pieces for the HR report
Document Sample
INTERIM REPORT (November 21, 2002)
Human Resources: Practices and Processes (OSU 2007)
1. Introduction
The Institutional and Unit Management Core Team of OSU 2007 identified “Human Resouces:
Practices and Processes” as an important element within the administrative components of the
strategic planning process. The IUM Core Team, chaired by Sabah Randhawa and Hal Salwasser,
derived a general charge for the entire IUM enterprise, focusing on goals 6-10 from the OSU 2007
goals:
Consider the future of institutional and unit management at Oregon State University and
how we can best position ourselves to improve performance in these vital functions of the
university. Develop a management structure that is responsive to our vision, innovative, and
sustainable in the changing future environment. Provide leadership for the university to
develop a shared vision and design for future institutional and unit management that
delivers quality services, is viable, efficient and effective, and is consistent with budget
parameters and resource development processes.
In response to this overarching charge to IUM, we developed a broad charter statement for the
Human Resources effort:
Faculty, staff, and students are Oregon State University's most valuable asset. We will work
to identify Human Resource practices and processes that will enable effective use of people
and funds to support the OSU mission.
The HR group consists of 8 members.
Tim Cowles, Chair, College of Oceanic and Atmospheric Sciences
Ronda Bullis, College of Oceanic and Atmospheric Sciences
Stella Coakley, College of Science and College of Agricultural Sciences
Lois Courtney, Extension
Linda Hoyser, College of Liberal Arts
Prudence Miles, Affirmative Action
Jacque Rudolph, Office of Human Resources
Steve Tesch, College of Forestry
2. Objectives
Our overall objective, as delineated by the OSU 2007 process guidelines, was to identify a „desired
future‟ for the practices and processes involving human resources at Oregon State University. We
therefore conducted our committee work to
assess effectiveness and efficiency of present HR practices and processes,
identify and resolve the major „problem‟ processes for various units,
identify and remove impediments to meeting unit and University HR needs, and
1
provide recommendations for a series of changes that will transform OSU HR into a more
strategic deliverer of key services by 2007.
3. Committee Approach
The HR Practices and Processes subcommittee initiated its meetings and data collection in April
2002. At the first meetings we compiled information about processes that limit the effectiveness of
both unit level and central HR processes. We compiled information and examples of processes and
procedures that have caused confusion, errors, and delays in conducting the HR business of the
University. We examined numerous documents and reports about HR processes that were
developed within various units on campus, including the OSU Office of Human Resources. The
committee chair received several anonymous suggestions for improvements, and numerous OSU
employees made contact with the committee chair or committee members regarding a variety of
concerns they had about existing HR practices.
We have initiated discussions of alternative models of delivery of HR services across campus, using
strategies developed at University of Michigan as one example of a forward-thinking approach
toward the integration of strategic HR management into the university‟s mission.
4. Present Status of HR at OSU: structure, functions, processes and strategic direction.
Structure
The organizational structure of the Office of Human Resources at OSU was changed in September
1998 to take advantage of several legislative changes and implementation of the Banner Human
Resources Information Software. This change also considered the recommendations in the KPMG
Peat Marwick report in 1992. The current structure includes oversight and administrative
responsibilities for all classified and most unclassified employee policies and processes in
collaboration with Academic Affairs. OHR also works closely with the Office of Affirmative
Action and Equal Opportunity regarding affirmative action and diversity issues related to HR
practices.
Legislative actions have allowed an increased degree of autonomy from the State of Oregon‟s
personnel system. Senate Bill 271 allowed the Oregon University System and OSU to bypass some
state personnel rules and regulations and establish greater autonomy for HR transactions. Senate
Bill 750 changed several areas of the collective bargaining process, providing greater ability to
bargain issues between OUS management and unions without Department of Administrative
Services intervention.
The Office of Human Resources is led by a Director who works with a team of six managers. The
managers are responsible for working groups which are organized around functional activities.
These are listed below, with the numbers of employee FTE (including management) in ().
Employee Relations/Classification and Compensation (5.0 FTE)
Training and Professional Development (2.0 FTE)
Employee Records and Information (7.0 FTE)
Employment Services (5.1 FTE)
2
Human Resources Information Services (2.0 FTE)
Employee Benefits (5.0 FTE)
Director‟s Office (2.0 fTE)
Additionally, the Director is responsible for the policy analyst (1.0 FTE) for the Finance and
Administration Division and this unit provides contracted employee benefits services (0.5 FTE) for
the OUS Chancellor‟s Office.
The Director of HR reports to the Vice-President for Finance and Administration but also has
reporting and collaborative links with Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity and with Academic
Affairs. Affirmative action consideration on a case-by-case basis is a function of OHR. OHR and
OAAEO work together on employment and other policy issues.
In addition to the centralized Office of Human Resources, each unit (College, Department, Center,
etc.) has staff who devote some portion of their respective FTE to HR functions. Due to the wide
range of unit size and associated range of emphases on instruction, research, and service by the
various colleges, the amount of unit-level FTE devoted to HR processes varies widely across
campus. At one end of the spectrum is the unit „HR expert‟ who has extensive training and
experience and is often able to answer nearly all HR questions that arise at the unit level. Such a
HR expert usually has excellent working relationships with central HR staff, and can anticipate
most process problems before the process is initiated at the unit level. Those units at OSU that have
established such HR experts within their business structure have fewer problems with HR practices
and processes, and raise fewer questions with central HR about procedures than units without HR
experts. Often, in these partnerships, there has been a deliberate focus in the working relationship
on an area identified as “value added” by the unit, thus addressing a unique need of the unit. At the
other end of the spectrum (and commonly found within smaller units at OSU) is the staff member
who has multiple job responsibilities within the unit, and HR processes often comprise less than
25% of that individual‟s workload. In many cases, these individuals have had to learn HR
processes through „on-the-job‟ training and do not have the time available to obtain formal training
from HR staff; the lucky ones may receive help from „mentors‟ in other departments but the
learning curve is often slowed due to the infrequency of transactions required. From this wide
spectrum of skills and experience at the unit level, HR processes are initiated and move through the
system.
A number of improvement efforts are „in progress‟ within the OSU Office of Human Resources
(and in related areas of Finance and Administration), and were initiated before the OSU 2007
process began. These include
- a list of HR measurement indices (some of which will be incorporated into OSU‟s „dashboard‟
metrics),
- creation of an updated, online Policies and Procedures manual, and
- development of Tasks OnLine for business and HR processes.
Draft documents about each of these projects were made available to our committee in April 2002.
The online projects are constrained by budget limitations within Finance and Administration, but
completion and user-testing of these projects could represent significant early „wins‟ for the OSU
2007 process (see below for more details).
3
Over the past decade, the Office of Human Resources has developed and updated its statements of
Mission, Vision, and Values, with HR goals linked to the mission of the university. The list of
goals, critical processes, and key activities drafted by HR outlines a solid roadmap for the future.
5. Problems/issues
As we proceeded with our evaluation of HR processes at OSU, it quickly became clear that we had
many specific examples and anecdotes regarding problems. A list of examples includes the
following:
- Inconsistencies in policies: one version in handbook, another version obtained by telephone,
- Too many layers of approval required for simple processes,
- Inconsistencies in answers to questions about policies and procedures,
- Inconsistent cross-campus employee performance appraisal process,
- Procedures/processes seem to change frequently, with no advance notice,
- Policy changes may have unanticipated adverse effects on grant funded research,
- Slow turn-around times for hiring approvals,
- Frequent misunderstandings between unit staff and central HR about specific processes,
- Inefficient (or non-existent) implementation of electronic forms,
- Some processes and procedures appear to be driven by software rather than common sense,
- Some end users feel the HR is not sensitive to the unique needs that arise in some units.
These examples represent symptoms of practices and processes that need adjustment or change. As
we outline in the following section, the sources/causes of these symptoms can be grouped into three
general categories:
Inadequate information technology infrastructure and processes
Inadequate training (unit and/or HR staff)
Inconsistent (or non-existent) distribution of responsibility and accountability for processes
and outcomes
In addition, the wide range of issues raised by supervisors, employees, and administrators alike
indicates that the University could benefit from a careful examination of its long-term vision for the
„human capital‟ assets of OSU.
6. What limits OSU and HR from achieving a ‘Desired Future’, and what changes should we
make to move closer to that ‘Desired Future’?
The issues identified in Section 5 lead us to two groupings of summary observations – those that
address strategic issues for the University, and those that address operational issues. (There will be
some challenges in deciding whether an issue is strategic or operational, as there can be overlap
between these categories – some committee discussion will be needed here). In general terms,
strategic issues are those that involve/impact the institutional mission, while operational issues
include efficient transaction processing, training, etc.
4
Strategic Issues
Observations
At most levels of the OSU organizational structure, the activities of the Office of Human
Resources are viewed as a series of transactions to be completed or „hurdles to be
jumped.‟ This view of HR fails to align the human capital of the University, and its HR
practices, with the University‟s mission, vision, and business plan for the future.
Several critical human capital elements are missing from the organizational and
operational structure of the University as it moves toward its „Desired Future.‟ In
particular, we find serious gaps in the University‟s ability to address many aspects of its
intellectual capital. These gaps include (but are not limited to) employee performance
assessment and development, leadership training and development, career planning, and
succession planning.
The organizational structure of the University does not facilitate consistent, high-quality
delivery of HR services. Units have formulated and implemented their own practices and
processes which have led to uneven levels of HR expertise across the campus. This has
resulted in increased costs due to duplication and inefficiencies in the delivery of
service. It also has led to mutual misunderstandings about the capabilities and
responsiveness of both unit-level and central HR personnel.
We have not implemented appropriate steps within the University structure to establish a
solid base of knowledge, understanding, and accountability about the primary roles and
responsibilities of administrators, managers, and supervisors in managing the human
capital of the University.
Our reliance on traditional recruitment and hiring strategies has not kept pace with the
changing workforce and our institutional need for diversification.
Recommendations
1) OSU should consider its unique human talent base as it moves toward its strategic
objectives. We recommend that specific human capital metrics be included with financial
metrics as the University assesses its progress, thus acknowledging the essential contribution
of people to the strategic mission. For example, extensive research within organizations has
shown that organizational success is tightly linked to high levels of employee job
satisfaction, which then results in lower rates of employee turnover. We recommend that
measures such as employee turnover, costs of hiring, and supervisor competence become a
consistent part of institutional management.
2) OSU should conduct a thorough evaluation by central HR and unit HR personnel of HR
needs at the unit level. Simultaneously, the leadership team in each unit must become
familiar with central HR constraints, such as compliance issues. This evaluation process
could eliminate considerable misunderstanding about HR processes, and should culminate in
5
a documented flow diagram for planning, processes, and staffing for HR actions within each
of the quite different units on campus.
3) OSU should implement a different HR service delivery model from the one currently in
place. We have discussed and examined three alternatives, some forms of which are being
implemented at other academic institutions. Revision of service delivery methods goes
beyond improving the efficiency of HR transactions, but establishes a better mechanism for
units to achieve their objectives. Possible models for more effective service include:
- Small HR team from central HR works closely with an individual unit under the
framework of a service agreement. This model is being implemented at University of
Michigan, and has met with considerable success.
- Individual HR professional from central HR is the designated resource person for a
particular unit – all HR issues and questions would flow thorough that individual.
Arizona State University implemented this model in 1998 with no increase in HR
staffing and no increase in the HR budget.
- Groups or clusters of units having similar HR requirements establish a local HR service
group or service center with well-trained staff.
4) OSU should redefine the campus „culture‟ so that all supervisors, managers, Deans,
Directors, embrace the responsibility to become knowledgeable about and experienced with
the human resource processes of their respective units. This new OSU culture will extend
from the clear commitment of the OSU leadership to aligning the human assets of the
University with its strategic objectives. This recommendation about „culture‟ is linked to,
and dependent upon, another more specific recommendation (see below) to enhance training
and development at OSU.
[Note for consideration: There should be an identified institutional “minimum unit size” for
different kinds of transactions. For example, for the human resource function to be done at
the unit level, there would be a minimum number of FTE supported within the unit.
Similarly, some minimum number of accounting staff with a minimum size and scope of
budget transactions for state and grant budgets, etc. would be required for that staff function
to exist within the unit. Units below that minimum size would obtain the needed HR and
accounting functions as part of a larger group.]
5) OSU will exemplify proactive recruitment and strategic hiring practices to achieve greater
diversity in tenure track and tenured faculty. In addition, OSU should develop initiatives to
diversify other employment groups.
Operational Issues
Observations
There is the general impression around the University that many HR processes are
unnecessarily complicated, confusing, and consist of too many layers of approvals. We
have found that this category reduces to two key components: process design, and user
training. Process design is in the midst of major revision during 2002-2003 (Tasks
6
OnLine, an electronic „menu‟ of simplified steps for initiating and submitting HR
actions), but procedures for end-user testing and evaluation are required. Lack of
consistent training of personnel (unit and central) seriously limits the effectiveness of the
University.
The lack of uniformly available, appropriate IT infrastructure leads to considerable
redundancy in many HR processes, in that information entered on a set of forms at the
unit level must be re-entered one or more times during the transit of that form through
the process. There also appear to be unreasonable and unnecessary levels of approval
required for many HR processes, creating apparent electronic roadblocks to efficient
processing. Significant efficiencies and cost savings could be realized by eliminating
these redundancies in data entry and reducing the time required for process approvals
Since most HR processes and actions are not „owned‟ at the unit level, an atmosphere of
casual non-compliance with HR guidelines has developed. At the same time, there is
little to no accountability for supervisors and administrators if they are inefficient,
ineffective or non-compliant in their HR responsibilities.
Recommendations
1) OSU should adopt an aggressive approach to moving HR processes into the 21 st century
thorough intelligent and strategic investments in IT (hardware, software, and skilled people).
There are several HR-related components to this recommendation:
o Banner is not an HR-friendly product, but a number of third-party software modules
are available to improve (significantly) the performance of Banner at OSU. For an
early „win‟ for OSU 2007, we recommend that OSU conduct a cost analysis on the
time and attendance software currently being used by OHSU.
o The development and completion of electronic Tasks OnLine should continue with
University funding until all tasks can move from origination to approval with one
data entry event and as few electronic approvals as possible. This recommendation
requires technically-skilled software personnel.
o Invest in the completion of a full online version of HR Policies and Procedures. Hire
new staff or retrain current staff so that all faculty and staff can rely on the online
version as the official source for correct Policies and Procedures.
2) OSU should adopt an aggressive employee training program for Human Resources
processes. This program should be aligned with the institution‟s strategic goals, and should
reinforce the need for accountability for processes at the level of process initiation. We
further recommendation that this employee training program be embedded within a
revitalized faculty and staff Training and Development program for the entire University
(see report of the Training and Development Satellite Team). This step is crucial for the
development of a campus culture that embraces and supports the contributions of
employees, and aligns those contributions with unit and institutional goals.
7
3) OSU should assure that decisions and approvals occur as close to the originating unit as
possible. OSU should also assure that decision-makers at the unit level are accountable for
their good and bad decisions. This recommendation requires a clear and explicit
understanding of roles and responsibilities at each supervisory, management, and leadership
level – at the unit level and the institutional level.
7. Next Steps – Opportunities - Implementation
We have prioritized our recommendations into an implementation table (see below) that attempts to
identify tasks and dependencies for those tasks for the next five years. We expect increased
effectiveness at the unit level and within central HR as these recommendations are implemented. In
addition, we expect that considerable cost savings will accrue as redundant and repeated actions are
removed from individual transactions through improvements in electronic processes.
We obtained valuable background information about HR changes through discussions with the HR
leadership at three academic institutions who have conducted reorganizations of HR or are in the
midst of HR reorganization. In the case of the University of Michigan, HR transformation was
initiated by the senior leadership of the University, while at the University of California the HR
changes were imbedded within a larger-scale strategic plan for all business processes. At Arizona
State University, the HR leadership developed a plan for improved services and strategic HR
activities, received approval to proceed, and then implemented that plan with no increases in the HR
budget. In none of these examples case was administrative cost-savings the primary motivating
factor in reorganizing. On the contrary, these institutions aggressively pursued improved
effectiveness and better personnel alignment with unit and institutional objectives.
It is crucial that OSU establish appropriate measures of the effectiveness of administrative
processes, and we encourage implementation of “human capital” metrics into the process of
assessing institutional success. Some suggestions follow the Implementation Table.
8
Implementation timing
HR Outcome 3/03 to 6/04 7/04 to 6/05 7/05 to 6/06 7/06 to 6/07 7/07 to 6/08
1) University and
Align staffing plans Align HR expertise
units have strategic Adjust strategic Adjust strategic Adjust strategic
(current and future) to staffing and
plans for staffing, staffing plans to staffing plans to staffing plans to
with Univ strategic succession planning
including succession shifting needs shifting needs shifting needs
vision needs
planning
Work with F&A to
2) Human capital
incorporate human
metrics are Assess and refine set
capital metrics;
integrated into Univ of metrics
establish balanced
„dashboard‟
scorecard approach
3a) Fully operational
“Tasks-OnLine”* Requires significant
(integral with I.T. staffing and
Policies and infrastructure
Procedures online)
Deploy Tasks-
Modify as needed,
IF IT OnLine; assess
assess for quality of
Improvements effectiveness with
service; Adjust
unit-level testing;
authorization and Continually assess Continually assess
implement unit-level
accountability for quality of service for quality of service
authorization and
process as needed
accountability for
for efficient
process; implement
operation
random audit process
Transfer all
IF IT administrative
Improvements policies and
3b) Policies and
procedures to web Maintain online
Procedures online Continually assess Continually assess
version as the
(integral with Tasks for quality of service for quality of service
definitive manual
OnLine)
9
Implementation timing
HR Outcome 3/03 to 6/04 7/04 to 6/05 7/05 to 6/06 7/06 to 6/07 7/07 to 6/08
4) New HR service
Deploy pilot system;
delivery model
Evaluate alternative Assess effectiveness
(integral with #5, Deploy modified HR Continually assess Continually assess
models; design pilot with surveys and
Enhance HR service model for quality of service for quality of service
system metrics; adjust
Technology
model as needed
Enablers..) *
Evaluate cost- Implement time and
5) Enhance HR Implement
effectiveness of attendance software
technology enablers additional HR
supplemental software and electronic
and capabilities of modules as defined
modules signatures/approval
Banner by needs assessment
software
6) Employee training Evaluate alternative
Deploy performance Modify assessment
and development models for
assessment; test model as needed; Continually assess Continually assess
linked to performance
linkages to training modify T&D courses for quality of service for quality of service
performance assessment; create
and development as needed
assessment new training structure
*multiple solutions imbedded within this outcome, see text for details
10
HR – Notes for Implementation Timeline Table
1) University and units have strategic plans for staffing, including succession planning, that align
with the University vision: this „desired future‟ also is linked to a „culture shift‟ for the campus, in
that units and University leadership clearly articulate how they will address the staffing needs
created by the vision for OSU 2007 and the impeding crisis posed by the large number of
retirements that will occur within the next 5-10 years.
2) Human capital metrics are integrated into University „dashboard‟ of performance indicators: this
„desired future‟ acknowledges that good management of the intangible assets of the University
(our people) contributes significantly to our overall success. For example, reduction in employee
turnover reduces annual hiring expenses, reduces new employee training expenses, and should
reflect improved job satisfaction – leading to better service quality.
3a) Fully operational “Tasks-OnLine”: this „desired outcome‟ consists of completion of the F&A
project to convert paper processes to on-line processes, with removal of redundant data entry and
error-checking. This outcome is dependent upon the implementation of improved IT
infrastructure and IT staffing. NO realistic progress toward this outcome can occur without an
up-front investment in skilled technical staff (software folks) in conjunction with the appropriate
network/database architecture.
3b) Policies and Procedures online: this „desired outcome‟ consists of completion of the transfer of all
paper versions of Policies and Procedures to an easily-accessible, up-to-date on-line manual. The
definitive, on-line version will guide all policy and procedure decisions at the unit level. This
outcome is dependent, to some degree, upon the implementation of improved IT
infrastructure and IT staffing.
4) New HR service delivery model: this „desired outcome‟ consists of a number of recommended
changes to the existing organizational structure. For example, the New Model will
minimize the differences in levels of HR expertise between units of different sizes;
facilitate unit responsibility for process initiation and completion, with attendant accountability
for compliance with external regulatory guidelines (including AA/EO);
align central HR expertise with HR needs within units;
facilitate employee „self-service‟ for many HR and benefit functions via on-line procedures;
Possible structures that could support these improvements:
i. Small HR teams (1-4 persons) from central HR work closely with individual units under the
framework of an explicit service agreement (this model now in place at Univ of Michigan);
ii. Individual HR professionals from central HR are the designated resource persons for
particular unit – all HR issues and questions would flow thorough that individual (this model
now in place at Arizona State Univ);
iii. Service groups, with well-trained staff, meet the HR needs of groups or clusters of units
having similar HR requirements.
Initial Steps: Deployment of any of these possible service delivery structures would first require
close collaboration between unit leadership and central administration to define the scope of the
11
issues and needs, taking care to honor the perspectives and requirements of both the unit and the
central administration.
5) Enhance HR capabilities of Banner: this „desired future‟ is linked to electronic Tasks OnLine and
thus has dependencies on IT infrastructure and staffing. External software modules are available
to improve the performance of Banner in the HR domain – first steps include evaluation of these
models from the perspective of seamless electronic processes and cost effectiveness.
6) Employee training and development linked to performance assessment: this „desired future‟ also
consists of multiple steps, and is linked to a „culture shift‟ for OSU. First, we must choose
appropriate performance assessment tools, then we must link those assessments to well-designed
training and development courses. In addition, proper deployment of assessment tools will require
significant improvements in training for management and supervisory staff. The key dependency
for this recommendation will be a commitment from University leadership to invest in an
expanded model for training and development for administrators, faculty, and staff.
8. References and resources
Books:
Becker, Brian E., Mark A. Huselid, and Dave Ulrich. 2001. The HR Scorecard: Linking people,
strategy, and performance. Harvard Business School Press, Harvard, Mass.
Fitz-enz, Jac. 2000. The ROI of Human Capital: Measuring the economic value of employee
performance. American Management Association, New York, NY.
Ulrich, Dave. 1997. Human resource champions: The next agenda for adding value and delivering
results. Harvard Business School Press, Harvard, Mass.
Reports:
2001 Benchmarking Survey of Human Resource Practices in Higher Education: Executive
Summary. College and University Professional Association for Human Resources.
Web resources examined for comparative information:
HR at NASA: (http://nasa.gov)
Arizona State University Human Resources
Duke University Human Resource (http://www.hr.duke.edu/utilities/about_hr/index.html)
University of California Human Resources (http://www.ucop.edu/humres/vision.html)
University of Michigan HR Transformation project:
(http://www.umich.edu/~hraa/transformation/overview.htm)
Johns Hopkins University Human Resources (http://www.jhu.edu/~hr1/vpadmin/vpmission.htm)
University of Minnesota Human Resources (http://www.umn.edu)
University of Oregon Human Resources (http://hr.uoregon.edu/
University of Georgia Human Resources
12
9. Appendices
We have examined publicly-available information (web) on the HR departments at several academic
institutions:
Arizona State University Human Resources
Duke University Human Resource (http://www.hr.duke.edu/utilities/about_hr/index.html)
University of California Human Resources (http://www.ucop.edu/humres/vision.html)
University of Michigan HR Transformation project:
(http://www.umich.edu/~hraa/transformation/overview.htm)
Johns Hopkins University Human Resources (http://www.jhu.edu/~hr1/vpadmin/vpmission.htm)
University of Minnesota Human Resources (http://www.umn.edu)
University of Oregon Human Resources (http://hr.uoregon.edu/
University of Georgia Human Resources
Washington State University
We also have had extensive telephone conversations with HR leadership at University of Michigan,
Arizona State University, and the University of California. It is our assessment that OSU presently fits
in the middle of the range of modern HR practices. University of Michigan, for example, has
embarked on a „strategic HR‟ process, implementing the HR concepts developed over the past decade
by Dr. Dave Ulrich, a prominent leader in national HR circles. Arizona State began implementing a
more strategic approach in 1998, and uses HR „generalists‟ as strategic advisors to the leadership in
units. In contrast, the HR offices at Washington State and University of Oregon, on the other hand,
possess a more traditional „silo‟ approach to HR transactions.
13
9.1 Appendix I. Oregon State University Office of Human Resources, 2002
OFFICE OF HUMAN RESOURCES
Mission
Provide innovative leadership, direction, and services in achieving an effective and high quality workforce at Oregon
State University.
Vision
OSU is the higher education employer of choice in the Pacific Northwest.
OSU provides opportunities for all its employees to achieve their career and worklife goals.
OSU employees use state-of-the-art technology to access human resources information and transact worklife
transactions.
Collaborative partnerships exist between OHR and its campus constituencies, utilizing best practices in the field of
human resources management.
All administrators, managers, and supervisors are highly skilled in human resources management and view personal
and professional development of them*selves and their staff as a continuous, on-going responsibility.
Cultural awareness and diversity is an integral part of OSU community and work environment.
Values
Quality is foremost in all that we do.
We focus on fair and equitable management of our responsibilities while promoting productivity and effectiveness
throughout OSU.
Flexibility, mutual exchange of ideas, and continuous improvement are essential to success.
Integrity must be expressed in all that we do and say.
Diversity in the University’s culture is critical to our collective success.
Employee innovation and recognition of contributions result in superior performance.
Each employee has a significant role in the achievement of the University’s mission.
OHR promotes and contributes to a work environment that encourages life-long learning and development.
Goals
Provide responsive HR programs and systems that are widely communicated and effectively used by campus
constituents.
Create a collaborative environment whereby management and labor can positively achieve common goals.
14
Provide tools, resources, and opportunities that will attract, develop, and retain a quality workforce at OSU.
Serve as a model organization for professional competency, teamwork, and innovation.
Improve workforce diversity through proactive recruitment and awareness programs.
15
OFFICE OF HUMAN RESOURCES
Current Key Initiatives
Implement on-line HR and payroll transaction processing.
Develop and implement expanded employment recruitment and selection training.
Develop on-line new employee employment registration as part of on-line transaction initiative.
Develop and implement new approaches to document management and imaging.
Develop OHR policies and procedures manual for faculty, staff and represented graduate assistant employees.
Implement employee SEVIS (Student & Exchange Visitor Information System) system in partnership with the Office of
International Education.
Partner with the Public Employee Benefits Board in the development and implementation of an on-line benefits
enrollment system.
Develop and deliver leadership program.
Develop University and OHR department metrics for HR administrative functions.
Continue development of website for delivery of HR information to campus constituents.
Enhance benefits training and orientation program.
Partner with OUS in updating classified classification specifications and minimum qualifications system.
Develop and implement position management guidelines.
Develop options and recommendations for creations of a compensation plan and strategy for unclassified employees.
Conduct successful labor negotiations with SEIU and CGE union.
Future Key Initiatives
Develop and implement on-line electronic applicant tracking and selection system.
Expand coaching and managerial support program.
Design and implement web-based training delivery program.
Develop and implement new administrator training program for department heads and chairs.
Investigate feasibility of electronic signatures/approvals for HR transactions.
Enhance services for professional faculty employees.
Revise classified employee performance management process.
Develop and implement an improved performance review process for unclassified employees.
16
OFFICE OF HUMAN RESOURCES
Critical Process Key Activities
Classification and Compensation Salary and Compensation
Position Classification
Position Management
Position Conversions
Unemployment Insurance
Employee and Labor Relations Collective Bargaining Negotiations (SEIU, CGE, & GCIU)
Performance Management
Conflict Resolution
Grievance and Disciplinary Actions (classified)
Collective Bargaining Agreement Administration
Fair Labor Standards Act Administration (classified)
Americans with Disabilities Act
Employment Services Employee Recruitment and Selection
Layoff Placement
Family Employment Program
PROMISE Internship Program
Fair Labor Standards Action Administration (unclassified)
Employee Records Management and Information Employment Registration
Employee Records and Personnel Files Administration
Employee Leave Administration
Employee Records Maintenance, Reporting and Archiving
Employee Records and Data Requests
Employment Verifications
17
OFFICE OF HUMAN RESOURCES
Critical Process Key Activities
Training and Professional Development Design and Deliver Training Programs
CORE Management and Supervisory Training
Organizational Development and Internal Consulting
Mediation and Facilitation
Coaching
OHR Website Administration
Employee Benefits Benefits Program Administration
Disability Insurance Management
Employee Retirement Program
Family Medical Leave Administration
Employee Assistance Program Oversight
Staff Fees Privilege Program Administration
Human Resource Information System (HRIS) Functional Systems Management
Business Process Analysis
InfOSU Administration (Web for Employees)
HRIS Team Leadership and Oversight
OHR On-Line Forms Administration
OHR Leadership Strategic Planning and Implementation (Department &
Division Level)
Department Administration
Internal Policy Development
Department Budgeting and Financial Monitoring
Administrative Policies and Procedures Manual
18
Related docs
